A Quiet 'Must' Read in a Dark Moment
Even with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu almost declaring war on Iran, the most valuable assessment of threats in the Middle East is "The Missing Mahatma: Searching for a Gandhi or a Martin Luther King in the West Bank," Gershom Gorenberg's rich, deep reckoning with how to get Israelis and Palestinians out of their death dance.
If you've followed me on "How (and How Not) to Assess Israel's Moral Self-Destruction," you know how coercive non-violence is becoming the most effective way to win power justly. Some Israelis and Palestinians have noticed this, even if most of their leaders and self-proclaimed spokesmen haven't.
Reading Gorenberg, I was suspicious at first of the fact that this Israeli author of The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977 and contributor to The American Prospect and the dovish Israeli Ha'aretz, had just published his "The Missing Mahatma" in, of all places, the neo-conservative Weekly Standard. Was this some West Bank pacification gambit? But an hour ago Gorenberg told me how the piece wound up where it did.
"The piece was originally commissioned by The Atlantic," he wrote me. "They accepted it - and then, for reasons having nothing to do with politics, sat on it for a long time. Meanwhile, an editor from The Atlantic who likes my work moved to the Standard... When at last The Atlantic decided not to publish it, he offered to.
"I could have spent time shopping it around, but... I preferred to update it and to get it published and into circulation on the Net, rather than let it gather dust..... After the effort I put into this essay, I wanted to give someone besides my family the chance to read it."
You'll be glad that he did. This is one of those rare reports that could just as well have appeared in The New York Review of Books, the Sunday Times Magazine, or The Nation.
The gradual awakening Gorenberg describes in Palestine has little chance of reaching very soon the kind of fruition it did under charismatic, brave leaders like Gandhi, Mandela, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Eastern European dissidents of 1989-92. That's a tragedy, because, as I said on New York City's NPR station WNYC, it has a good chance of working on Israelis, whose profound if unacknowledged ambivalence about their own violence Gorenberg describes in explaining some of its recent extremity and its failure.
Make time this afternoon or evening to settle down with this quiet "must" read in a very dark time. Gorenberg tells me he read Jonathan Schell's indispensible The Unconquerable World, which I described in the post linked above and in my other Israel-Gaza posts, now collected here. Anything I've written on this subject was but a prelude to Gorenberg's stunning and canny effort to show all the parties what may be their only way to end the dance of death.
Non-violence is not an option for Israel. It is a cuckoo in a Muslim nest and can only hold its position by force.
It could have built a permanent co-operation had it been willing to acknowledge its guest status when it first arrived.
But Israel wanted to be the ubermaster of the region; controller of the River Jordan and of all access points north, south, east and west by sea, air and road.
It can only ensure this by military superiority which she has now without any doubt. But times are a- changing and this half century of hegemony will be written in future historiography as a lesson in how not to make friends and influence people but how to cut-off the branch upon which one is sitting.
Sounds incredible for a nation that grows Nobel Prize winners - but sadly true. I guess, some people are just too clever by half.
April 1, 2009 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bluecanary seems to subscribe, ironically, to some Israelis' and many Arabs' exotic, antiquated, racialist "blut et boden" (blood and soil) notion that peoples belong to lands and lands to peoples in a sacred way.
The problem with such thinking -- aside from the fact that he will probably have to leave America and give its blood-soaked river banks back to the original inhabitants -- is that it is a dead end for both sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict and happens to fly in the face of the realities.
Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, and Iraq, especially, have been home to Christians and Jews as well as Muslims for millennia. The 1917 Ottoman census of Iraq counted 80,000 Jews among Baghdad's 200,000 residents, and 10,000 more Jews in Basra and more in Mosul. They had been there since 586 BCE. But apparently Bluecanary is glad they've been kicked out. Perhaps he's also actually glad that so many Palestinian Arabs were kicked out of Israel in 1948, since Hebrew was the language in that area for about a thousand years before any Arab was spoken and 700 years before Islam grew out of the Hebrew religion.
That's what the "full Israel" Zionists will tell you, and while they're right on those facts, I'm not sure that Bluecanary knows that their and his logic converge. Presumably he wants the Christians out, too, at least if they don't have enough Arab blood as measured by more than a one-drop rule. My brother-in-law, a Mizrahi Jew, grew up in Baghdad and attended a Jesuit-run high school there. But Bluecanary is glad that all that is over now. He has to be, by his logic.
I'm not glad, and I'm not glad for the situation of Arabs in Palestine and in the pre-1967 borders of Israel, and Gorenberg, whose piece I wrote this post to commend,and which I hope that Bluecanary will read, isn't glad about it, either. He vision beyond "blood and soil."
April 1, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
that's "Blut und Boden"
April 1, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hans, thanks. You'd think that, sitting as I am in Berlin at the moment, I'd know better than to mix French and German. "Und" it is.
April 2, 2009 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your post was good, but this reply is a rant.
Why?
April 1, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gandhi's. influence is enormously overstated. Britain was an exhausted and bankrupt power unable to maintain its empire. As soon as the British left Gandhi was assassinated and the Hindus and Muslims settled their differences in the usual way; with war and expulsion.
Same is true of Martin Luther King. Absent Eisenhower's authority and willingness to commit troops...and the constant threat of violent riots and tremendously expensive civil disruption nothing would have happened.
April 1, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would Eisenhower have sent troops were it not for MLK and his compatriots' leadership and influence among the many? Or, without his Christian message of love of neighbor which cut to the heart of the double standard? No, because there would have been no rallying on the issue without the courage of a number of folks willing to stick their heads up.
Truly, MLK risked his life for African Americans and their full rights and privileges of citizenship. At the same time, I believe he also established a respect for how the exercise of two civil rights, religious freedom and expression, both of which were the boast of the republic (it was how we were different from the USSR) came to the rescue of civil rights that the majority felt little connection to, but could not deny.
Same constitution, same bill of rights.
King brilliantly brought a constitutional message through a spiritual / ethical conduit into the conscience of the majority.
April 1, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Would Eisenhower have sent troops were it not for MLK and his compatriots' leadership and influence among the many?"
Without a doubt. Eisenhower's position on civil rights long antedated King's emergence on the national scene. So did Truman's and Mrs. Roosevelt's.
"Or, without his Christian message of love of neighbor which cut to the heart of the double standard?"
The Christian message of love was not Martin Luther King's. It's been around for 2000 years...with rather questionable effectiveness.
The point is that violence is an essential part of human behavior and is not going to be eliminated by appeals to reason or increasingly destructive weapons.
I find it ironic that the same people who are calling for its elimination are screaming for more government regulation. How do you think such regulation is to be enforced? Do you think Madoff would voluntarily have gone to jail? That he could have been shamed into going?
April 1, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
That should be "pre-dated" rather than "ante-dated".
April 1, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
If King had no moral right, he'd have had nothing of the pull he had.
If King had no pull, I'm not convinced Eisenhower's actions would have been considered necessary.
I'm not suggesting that violence isn't part of fallen human behavior, however, I wouldn't call it "essential" to being human. I'm no social Darwinist.
April 3, 2009 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who can calm the raging sea?
I'd like to know more about education in Israel and Palestine. Do Palestinians learn Hebrew and do Israelis learn Arabic? Do they read each other's books?
April 1, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know the exact percentage, but I am under the impression that most Israelis who go to public school learn some Arabic (I imagine yeshivas are a different story). I highly doubt Palestinian schools teach Hebrew, although I don't know for sure. When you hear about a Palestinian knowing Hebrew, it's usually because he learned it in prison.
It is different of course for Israeli Arabs.
April 1, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
BradtheDad is misinformed. According to every Israeli I've spoken to, the overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis do not speak Arabic (excepting the older generation of Jews from Arab countries). Those that have put in the effort are military intelligence, academics who study Palestinians, and some radical leftists who work with Palestinians. The broader climate is one of disparagement towards Arabic and those who speak it, seen even in as nationalistic a place as the Jerusalem Post. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1236764174383&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
An effort to include a poem by Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish in the Israeli high school curriculum was killed in the '90s by those who felt it could lower patriotism.
As for Palestinians who've learned Hebrew: a) what exactly is wrong with learning Hebrew in prison? Sounds like a fine idea to me. b) the majority of Palestinian merchants know Hebrew. This may be more out of necessity than love, but it shows a pragmatism at least. c) Palestinians feel their society and culture are under siege by a powerful and encroaching dominant culture, and understandably place most of their curricular efforts on preserving Arabic language and lit. (which is really time consuming, believe me).
But there are efforts on both sides to understand the "other" through language. It's not a competition for who knows more of the other's tongue.
April 1, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, I never said that most Jewish Israelis know Arabic. I said that most public schools teach it. But this is like saying most American high schools teach French. The number of people who can speak French as a result is pretty small.
Second, I am not sure what "broader climate" you are talking about, but I am unaware of any campaigns to stamp out Arabic or the teaching of Arabic. If you want to get into a discussion about Israeli attitudes towards Arabs as a people, that is a different topic.
Third, you are correct that those Palestinian merchants that have regular contact with Israelis know some Hebrew out of necessity. This is a relatively small number of people however as few Israelis are going to the occupied areas to shop these days.
Finally, the point about Palestinians feeling their culture is being "encroached" by a dominant culture is hilarious. Don't get me wrong - I think you are correct that many Palestinians feel that way. But all that does is demonstrate how tightly Palestinian society is gripped with paranoia and delusion. The idea that a small sliver of a country with 6 million or so Jews is out to "encroach" on the Palestinian culture, which is after all basically Arab culture which has more like 350 million adherents, is so over-the-top absurd that it makes you just shake your head in disbelief.
April 1, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Finally, the point about Palestinians feeling their culture is being "encroached" by a dominant culture is hilarious. Don't get me wrong - I think you are correct that many Palestinians feel that way. But all that does is demonstrate how tightly Palestinian society is gripped with paranoia and delusion. The idea that a small sliver of a country with 6 million or so Jews is out to "encroach" on the Palestinian culture, which is after all basically Arab culture which has more like 350 million adherents, is so over-the-top absurd that it makes you just shake your head in disbelief.
You can't seriously believe that the Palestinian citizens of Israel (the ones Lieberman wants to force to take loyalty oaths and whose political parties were threatened to be banned in the last Israeli election) are just paranoid for feeling their culture, society--and very existence--are threatened within a Jewish ethnocracy? That's a little like claiming Iranian Jews must be paranoid if they feel a little insecure about their position in the Islamic republic.
April 1, 2009 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
To clarify: Israeli Jews are taught Arabic in public school until junior high when they have an option of continuing or switching to a third language (i.e., French, in addition to Hebrew and English). I believe most choose not to continue with Arabic, though I don't have the statistics, so relatively few grow to become fluent (of course, there are many immigrants for Arabic is a native language). English is mandatory. I believe all Israeli Arabs are taught Hebrew and are proficient in it.
April 2, 2009 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos to you Jim for highlighting this article and pushing its message.
I have long thought that of the many mistakes the Palestinians have made in the course of the last 60 years, the failure to adopt a strategy of nonviolent resistance was surely the worst. The violence of the Palestinian resistance, most hideously expressed in the suicide bombing campaign of a few years ago, has been a gift to that portion of the Israeli population that wants to hold on to the West Bank at any cost. This is a group that is not just indifferent to the Palestinians but also indifferent to Israel's image, Israel's economy and to notions of democracy. These are the people that have made a fetish of the land and the settlements and view it as a gift from God. They cannot be reasoned with politically and eventually must be defeated if there is to be a Palestinian state.
As long as there is Palestinian terrorism, these people are off the hook within the context of Israeli and American politics. They can plausibly claim that the settlements are not the real issue - that the real aim of the Palestinians is to destroy Israel. They can claim - again, with justification - that concessions will only embolden terrorists further. Look, they say, what happened in Lebanon and Gaza, where Israeli pullouts were followed by more terrorism and violence. They will never be forced to confront the damage they do because the Palestinians are so much worse.
Remove the violence and terrorism and the result, I believe, would be remarkable. Like the British in India or the segregationists in the American South, the Israeli rejectionists would be deprived of the easy excuse. They would be forced to confront the injustices they are responsible for. Most of all, they would lose the de facto support they currently enjoy of the broad Israeli middle that is neither peacenik nor pro-settler. This is a wide swath of Israelis that is fundamentally practical in outlook and will turn on the settler fanatics if they can see the end of the conflict in sight.
Alas, it is just a fantasy at this point. Perhaps a Palestinian leader will emerge who can play the Gandhi role. But I wouldn't bet on it.
April 1, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
JIM - I have no doubt that your facts are correct but harking back to 1917 or 586 BC gains us nothing. The status quo ante is purely academic.
The only relevant facts IMHO are those that currently pertain and those, as I have said, include that of a cuckoo in a Muslim nest. Whichever way the argument is turned, it will be found that the state of Israel is an anachronism. A tiny minority of just five million European and American Jews in a sea of untold millions of indigenous Muslims. The story of who was there at the time of Christ is superfluous.
Presently you have a situation akin to a piece of bacon floating on top of a bowl of lockshen soup. It's trafe - and so, unfortunately, is Israel in Palestine.
April 1, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey canary -
"A tiny minority of just five million European and American Jews in a sea of untold millions of indigenous Muslims" would not be "trafe". It would be "batel b'shishim", kosher precisely because it constitutes such a minute portion of the whole stew. Please get your halakhic facts straight. Also, American Jews constitute a small percentage of the Israeli population. You forgot for some reason to include the 40% or so who hail from North Africa and the Mideast.
April 2, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two questions (with a little lead-in) for Gershom Gorenberg and Jim Sleeper:
1) During the first intifada, Mubarak Awad was a Palestinian who organized non-violent actions in the beginning months of the uprising. What was Israel's response? It expelled him. Israel saw him as a threat to their interests in land and the expansion of the Israeli economy through settlements, as well as a PR problem. Why would they not respond differently today? And does Israel's more recent expulsion of members of the International Solidarity Movement, who coordinate with Palestinians to organize non-violently, not show the same response?
2) For over two years there have been nonviolent Palestinian protests over land confiscation and the route of the separation barrier near the Palestinian village of Bil'in. There hasn't been an outpouring of Israeli solidarity (aside from the far left). Most importantly, it gets very little press: as the newspaper saying goes, "if it bleeds, it leads." Gandhi and King received massive press coverage, which was critical to their campaigns. What makes you think the US media, or Israeli media outside of Ha'aretz, would care about nonviolent demonstrations that have nothing to do with the spectacle of Israelis (or Palestinians, if in large enough numbers) getting killed or injured? In other words: the media overwhelming see Israel as embodying "our values." When existing non-violent actions are either ignored or hysterically condemned (witness the response to calls for a boycott of Israeli goods -- a non-violent protest after all), why do you think more non-violent events will have a different response?
April 1, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both Gandhi and King were able to make non-violence the dominant tactic in the overall movement they represented. The Indian independence movement and the US civil rights movement were, almost from the very beginning, defined by non-violence. That doesn't mean there was no violence. Only that violence wasn't the defining tactic.
If only it were the same with the Palestinians. Even if the Palestinians stopped violent tactics tomorrow, their movement would be stained by their past foul deeds for a considerable length of time. It would take years, possibly decades, to shake the reputation, which is probably one reason why it won't happen. You'd see the advocates of violence try to undermine the movement by pointing to the lack of results.
On the other hand, if non-violence did come to define the Palestinian cause, the pressure on Israel to play ball would be intense. It took Gandhi 30 years to achieve Indian independence and would have taken longer were it not for WWII. A Palestinian equivalent could probably accomplish the same in less than 10.
April 1, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Irony watch: "Even if the Palestinians stopped violent tactics tomorrow, their movement would be stained by their past foul deeds for a considerable length of time."
So how long will Zion-land be stained by the killing of 400 Palestinian children in Gaza?
April 1, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah yes, always with the moral equivalence. And the thinly-veiled hatred.
But what the heck, I'll bite.
The right answer is that for those who see Israel as illegitimate, Israel will forever be stained. For those who don't, peace will put a shine on the reputation of both Israel and the Palestinians.
But it's also a totally irrelevant question. Either the Palestinians want a state or they don't. To get one, they need concessions from Israel. To get that, they need to convince Israelis that their intentions are honorable. All that matters, in this analysis, is what Israelis think of Palestinians. Can they be trusted? What Israel's reputation looks like doesn't come into it.
Not fair, but life isn't fair. The Palestinians would have had their state decades ago if they understood that fact.
April 1, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTD: "Not fair, but life isn't fair. The Palestinians would have had their state decades ago if they understood that fact.'
Really? Considering that Golda Meir said that Palestinians didn't exist as a people, I'm a little confused about this decades-long Zionist offer of a Palestinian state.
I suspect you are referring to the UN Plan of Partition. Mighty generous of the Colonial Powers to offer to give away someone else's land. And the natives rejected it. Tush, tush.
April 1, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palestinians were offered a state in 1936, 1947 and 2000. The Palestinian question was also on the agenda in 1978 during the Camp David Accords, although no formal plan was put forward.
Golda Meir was correct in saying there was no historical "Palestinian" nation. The idea of a Palestinian people, separate and distinct from Egyptians, Lebanese, Jordanians or other Arab nations, is a modern notion. Historically, Arabs existed as local tribes and clans. It was only in the 20th century, after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire that Arab nation-states formed. But however true Golda's statement may have been, it was also irrelevant as by the time she was Prime Minister, a Palestinian identity had formed and was a crucial part of the overall Arab-Israeli conflict. In any case, despite her silly statement, the statement still stands: a Palestinian state could have been had decades ago had they rejected violence.
April 1, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having lived there for a few years, I tend to agree that a true non-violent movement might well have worked ( I wouldn't call it a certainty). This doesn't absolve Israel of its sins/errors and it doesn't provide the emotional satisfaction of a real comeuppance, but two states co-existing with some measure of peace and justice would be kinda nice nonetheless.
April 2, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to refer commenters to my new post, "Coercive Non-Violence Isn't What You May Think," a few posts above this one. I try to answer some of your points there.
April 1, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've posted these same paragraphs more than once, and probably once already in response to a post by Jim Sleeper
Stephen Zunes of Foreign Policy in Focus
As I say every time, none of this is new. But this isApril 1, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink